Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
S Saravanan vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 6 February, 2020 cites

Dy.Inspector Gen.Of Police & Anr vs S.Samuthiram on 30 November, 2012

20. With regard to OA Nos. 145/19 and 148/19, these OAs were filed against the order of rejection of reinstatement after the acquittal of the Criminal Case. In the 12 OA 145/2019 & Batch discussion of OA Nos. 579 & 581 of 2019, we have dealt with the question whether the applicants are entitled to a reinstatement into service on the ground of acquittal in the Criminal Case. The service rule of the applicants does not provide for an automatic reinstatement into service on an acquittal from Criminal Case. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police's case (referred supra) clearly lays down the principle in para 23. So, we are of the opinion that the applicants in these two OAs have no right to get reinstated as claimed by them. So, these two OAs are liable to be dismis- ed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 367 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

P. R. Nayak vs Union Of India on 7 December, 1971

22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in R.P Kapeor v. Union of India's case (referred supra), has held that even if the Criminal Case ends in an acquittal, the department can proceed with departmental action. Hire, we have discussed the nature of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court in OA Nos. 579 & 581 of 2019 and we have found that the acquittal passed was only on technical ground and not an honourable acquittal. It is for the Department to decide tased on the materials in hand to decide &) 13 OA 145/2019 & Batch whether to proceed with departmental inquiry or not.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 66 - I D Dua - Full Document

Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr on 30 March, 1999

11. It was also argued that the applicants are issued with charge memo on the basis of the same facts and circumstances and it is not fair to proceed again on same set of circumstances in a departmental inquiry. The counsel invited our attention to Caption M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Lid., & another to content that the action of the respondents is unjust rather oppressive to allow the proceedings to go on.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 1683 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1